Eliciting confidence ratings produces no significant difference in overall accuracy on a timed reasoning task in older adults¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In a randomized experiment with older adults, the confidence-ratings group and the no-CR control group did not differ significantly in Overall Accuracy on the timed Latin Square Task. → Double 2018

Evidence¶

Double 2018¶

Double, K. S., & Birney, D. P. (2018). Reactivity to confidence ratings in older individuals performing the latin square task. Metacognition and Learning, 13, 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-018-9186-5

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Randomized online experiment: 46 participants in the No-CR control and 43 in the CR group completed a 15-minute timed Latin Square Task. Regression on Overall Accuracy showed "no significant difference between experimental groups", b = −2.33, p = .515; equivalence was not tested.

"A regression model (R 2 =. 1 7 , F(3,85) = 5.97, p < .001) indicated that there was no significant difference between experimental groups in terms of Overall Accuracy, b = −2.33, t = −.65, p = .515."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Confidence ratings improve short-term accuracy for high prospective-confidence older adults but impair it for low prospective-confidence adults — related
• Eliciting confidence ratings leads to poorer metacognitive monitoring in older adults — related
• Confidence ratings shift time allocation on a timed task in opposite directions for high- versus low-confidence older adults — related